How much should a research agenda for creative industries be shaped by a policy and industry orientation? Academic disciplinary knowledge is typically generated by the successive refining of methods of enquiry and the stabilisation of, and consensus around, objects of enquiry. Developing research agendas for creative industries could not be further from this kind of activity. Looking back at the 'birth' of creative industries, John Newbigin, in Chapter 1, reminds us of the politically experimental, contingent nature of the 'uncharted territory' of 'raising the profile of an eclectic jumble of generally IP-based, culturally-rooted businesses that governments and banks had conspicuously failed to understand or take seriously as part of the economy'. Lutz and Karra (2009, p. 117) argued that DCMS' definition 'does not provide any systematic, persuasive or logical explanation of what precisely its clump of thirteen subsectors (advertising, architecture, art and antiques, crafts, design, designer fashion, software, film and video, music, performing arts, publishing, television and radio) share'. Emphasising these contingent beginnings is by no means to say that rigorous disciplinary knowledge cannot, or should not, be brought to bear in creative industries research. Indeed, much of this book is dedicated to the challenges creative industries pose for knowledge generation in a wide variety of disciplines. It also does not mean that there are not recurrences, consistencies and even constants that researchers can identify as distinctly constituting the field of creative industries research. These fundamental points will arise throughout this book.